From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 03:04:04 MST
Damien Broderick wrote:
> Greg Burch:
>
> > Is it the same piece that I and others addressed here:
> >
> > http://www.extropy.org/ideas/journal/previous/2000/01-04.html
> >
> > 3 or 4 years ago?
>
> Yep. http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/99jan.htm#_Toc456110960,
> which you cite
> at the top, looks identical.
I agree. And I feel like a newbie again swimming in data.
I read the post in the subject header for the first time this
morning and liked it because I thought it was provocative
and mistakenly thought it was new. The misreference to Daisy
the clone had me perplexed though, I didn't recall any Daisy,
and I've followed that area reasonably closely, and read Wilmut
et als book "The Second Creation".
Anyway, having gotten all excited about the possibility of some
genuinely thorough and constructive analysis I find the material
been gone over and therefore probably some of the fiercer minds
will be reluctant to take it up again. What a bummer!
I just read the link Greg refers to (above top), not forensically, but
close enough I think. I have to say, or rather choose to say, (as
a relative newbie to both transhumanism and Extropian thought)
it is *still* my suspicion that there is much in Toth-Fejel's criticisms
that could be "valuably" considered. That's a vague statement I
know but I'm wrestling now in part with the bandwidth of the
medium. .
Unlike Greg Burch, I saw Toth-Fejels comments on first impression
as constructive and coming from an independent thinker and ally
not an opponent. I thought, "Great! There's nothing like criticism to
make a good thing better."
For the record Greg, (having now read your Dialogue Concerning
Transhumanist and Extropian Ethics) I'm with you on the theist/atheist
dimension (unless you've changed your mind) but I don't think any,
correction all, of Toth-Fejels points, or anyone else's, when they are
so well put together, can be summarily dismissed.
I read you paper "Extropian Ethics and the Extrosattva" a couple of
months ago and thought it was very good. I didn't think your
initial response to Toth-Fejel was of the same high standard.
Partly so you know I've read the paper, but mainly because it is an
unusual viewpoint and one I'm inclined to myself, I draw your
attention to a statement you made (its page 45 of 52 on my printout.
Within Dialog part 1):
You said (then):
"(Unlike many transhumanists) I think an "objective" morality is
possible, and thus that moral axioms are not "unprovable" in the
sense that they are not derived from empirical observation and
experiment".
Does Extropian Ethics and the Extrosattva represent your most
developed thoughts or public thoughts on this subject? I ask
because I want to know where the frontiers lie in your view and
because I want to gauge whether new efforts in this area should
be a priority.
Regards,
Brett
]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST